In a response to the syndicated column, "Bhutto had pro-life stance that clashed with liberal feminists," the letter writer wrote that liberal feminists (including Hillary Clinton and the National Organization for Women) had little to say about her assassination.

However, in a Google search, I found that in her blog on Dec. 27, 2007, Clinton expressed in a statement that she was "profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability, and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred, and violence."

NOW President Kim Gandy wrote on Jan. 4 that "the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan, robbed the world of a charismatic and dedicated advocate for democracy in the Middle East."

Before we impugn others for their lack of concern about the assassination of world leaders, it might be useful to do some research first.

GLEN BIGLAISER/Lubbock

Several reasons not to give traffic cameras more time

Re: The editorial "Give red-light cameras more time" (A-J, Jan. 27).

The Red-Light Camera Committee (CPTSEC), using data provided by city staff, studied the issue at great length and recommended removing the cameras. The committee did its job fairly and objectively, using common sense.

The A-J's editorial on red-light cameras reveals the fact the reasons the CPTSE commission voted to remove the cameras have not been publicized or understood.

The CPTSEC voted against the cameras based on the failure of the program on safety, not money. The point of cameras is to change citywide driving behavior, not just at camera intersections. The problem is the change has been for the worse!

Looking at the data, like the CPTSEC did, it's obvious driving in Lubbock is less safe than it was before cameras.

There are several reasons not to give cameras more time. In six months, 150 more accidents at just 24 intersections. Increased property damage well over $1,000,000. Six more months of this? Cameras changed city-wide driving behavior dramatically and immediately for the worse.

What would cause a reversal? Insanity is the word for doing the same thing and expecting different results. Plus, any reversal in behavior has a very long way to go for actual improvement. More study means picking data and statistics to make any point you want. Do what the CPTSEC did - use common sense and look at the big picture.

Everyone wants safer streets. But the solution provided by a for-profit company (cameras) is clearly not working, and the cameras should be taken down.